Truth?

Very few girls speak openly about sexual desire or love for older guys because (drum roll)... very, very few feel such a thing, and of those who do

I'm not aware of any Iranian homosexuals or Saudi Arabian feminist women speaking out against the alleged oppression, which Western style propagandists claim exist there. Why are they, as adults, not rioting in the streets if such mild restrictions are not to their liking?

Based on the lack of protests, what would the prior probability be in this case?

As for logic, when you ignore counter-examples to your claims and behave as if they don't matter, you do ignore logic. It cannot be the case that logic matters only in the posts of others, and not yours. Either logic matters, or it does not.

Beyond that point in your post, I can't follow your reasoning very well.

OK, I'll try again.

Why are girls necessarily a special case of women? Does girls necessarily have all legal rights Western women have? Why would girls loving older men necessarily map onto women alleged to victims of rape? What would be wrong with instead mapping loving relationships onto loving relationships?

For genocide, Hajduk's and Baldur's recent posts give the details.
Is compassion and sympathy necessarily consistent with seeking to maximize suffering, as is the case for exclusive pedophiles and the girls loving them? Despite the obvious risks to sexy heterosexual men (I can't help but imagine the plight of Dissident here), you do not argue for equivalent restrictions for homosexuals, in particular anti-pedophiles, do you?
Why does suffering only matter in one special case, and not in any other?

My use of the Loch Ness monster is in analogy to your faith in the existence of rape without actual evidence. If you fault Dissident for unfalisifiable claims, surely I can hold you to that standard too.